tv Charlie Rose PBS March 25, 2010 12:00pm-1:00pm EDT
>> rose: welcome to the broadcast. tonight, the defenseñi ministerf the state of israel, ehud barak, talks about meetings in washington and the future of the israeli/palestinian peace process. >> i don't believe any player, either israel leadership, american leadership, world leadership or palestinian leadership doesn't know well the end game. the real test is to enter into this room and i tell you authoritatively israel is ready to go into the room when it's clear that some decision will be extremely painful to us. but we are waiting i think that the real challenge today is to be able to establish it. basically a mission for netanyahu and for president obama to find a way to nurture
intimacy, trust, and to inspire. we cannot promise there will be no difference. as they are calling many times, i remember calling president clinton telling him i see something start to... some challenge start to loom over the horizon, let's think together how to face it. and we have a difference about it, differences, but it always was an open, frank discussion and trusts each other not to be manipulated. and we are a sovereign state. we can't dictate to you, you can't dictate to us but there is a need for this intimacy and transparency in order to tackle the challenge in that way. and we do not expect president obama lose his even handedness with the rest of the issues.
>> rose: a program note, episode six of our brain series which was scheduled to be seen this evening will be seen tomorrow night. tonight, the defense minister of israel ehud barak next. ♪ ♪ if you've had a coke in the last 20 years, ( screams ) you've had a hand in giving college scholarships... and support to thousands of our nation's... most promising students. ♪ ( coca-cola 5-note mnemonic ) captioning sponsored by rose communications
from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: ehud barak is the defense minuter? the coalition government of netanyahu. a former general and israel's most decorated soldier, he also leads the labour party. from 1999 to 2001 he was prime minister he tried along with president bill clinton and yasser arafat to reach a peace agreement in camp david. he's in washington with prime minister netanyahu at a moment when u.s./israel relations have been strained over israel's settlement policies in east jerusalem. netanyahu defended those poll sneeze a defiant speech at the annual aipac conference. >> the connection between the jewish people and jerusalem cannot be denied. (cheers and applause)
the jewish people were building jerusalem 3,000 years ago and the jewish people are building jerusalem today. jerusalem is not a settlement, it's our capital! (cheers and applause) everyone knows that these neighborhoods will be part of israel in any peace settlement and therefore building in them in no way precludes the possibility of a two-state solution. >> rose: characterize for me the state of u.s./israeli relations. >> we have been have ups and downs for weeks in the kind of embarrassing event during the biden visit. but i hope that these meetings this week here in washington will put this behind us and pave the way to resumption of
proximity talks that will lead as soon as possible into a fully fledged direct negotiations about this agreement with the palestinians. and america is basically our great ally. we are a sovereign state, we have our own security interests and other vital interests, we expect to be respected by our friends and allies but we're extremely deeply involved, interwined with u.s. interests. we believe that we share the same belief, same values and we see america under a different president, including this administration of barack obama as the main for our security and the foreign relations. >> rose: do you have any questions about the support of president obama's for israel's security? >> i don't think so.
i think that administration showed in action, in deeds, not just in talks. kind of good contacts with the pentagon, with secretary gates, we have good contacts with the n.f.c. and the administration. president obama gives backing for the security support of america to israel and we believe that we are serving the same wider cause. we feel like an output of the western way of life. the american, israeli, and free world values in a quiet, tough neighborhood. >> rose: just looking back at when biden, the vice president, was there. how do you explain the announcement coming while he was there? >> it's something that is embarrassing, damaging, very
wrong timing but i can assure you that neither... the cabinet knew about in the advance and it's unfortunately it's extremely complicated planning forces, zoning forces that we have in israel that reminds me of the... it's complicated, uncontrollable process but now we... the government nominated a committee of senior level officials to make sure that this cannot happen once again. >> rose: and your imsuppression the american administration has accepted that? accepted the apology? accepted the notion that it will not happen again. >> i think that they accepted it. i hope that we will be able to avoid this kind of events from happening but honestly i cannot tell you that we fully control
any step or any announcement about all these dozens of programs which are in the pipeline, including many that are related to arab building in jerusalem and so on. i cannot promise you that kind of... no mishap will happen but i can promise you that we'll do our best to make sure that we'll keep with the american administration a kind of open dialogue about what happens. we keep the right to build this jerusalem, it's been the policy of the israeli government since we came there myself with clinton, president clinton or ariel sharon with bush never took it as anyone can intervene in but having said that, we understanding realities and we
shared the same objective of... in creating the recognitions to a successful, fruitful, political process. and we understand that it takes some decisions to be made along the way. >> rose: some believe that the obama administration used it, seized the moment to say something very strong to the prime minister and to israel. >> i don't have this impression. i was the last one to meet with meet vice president biden before he left for israel. i talked to hillary, i talked yesterday to the american officials. i don't see it this way. it's clear there was embarrassment that started with something that happened... >> rose: but you do not read this as a decision by the obama administration-- for the lack of a better word-- to get tougher
with israel and more demanding of israel because they believe the larger interest for israel and the united states is to accelerate the peace process between israelis and palestinians. >> we have no difference on this issue. we also believe that the need to accelerate the peace process. i think that if we have to choose between diving into all theseñi details of whatever are approved or not approved, we should focus on the real issue, how to course beyond the proximity talks into substantive direct negotiations because it's it still will be a real challenge. namely, our government and netanyahu with its quite strange structure, a very heavyweight on the right wing and center to the
left only the a party label. we realize that we are far two-state solution. we are for the road map. we agree to recognize all agreements signed by previous israeli governments, and i think that the real challenge is to bring netanyahu and abu hasen into a room as representatives to discuss directly with americans in theñi room, it's nt a problem for us. mazen. all the core issues. >> rose: all the core issues, everything is worth talking about. jerusalem? the right of return? borders. >> it's only when you put all the issues on the table off chance of solving them because otherwise you teal with only one aspect. my position is that instead of speculationing is that netanyahu abu mazen, the proof of the puting is in the eating. you have to find a way not just
to seduce both sides into negotiating but create a situation where they have to make decisions. take, for example, the last meet a few days ago. i believe that genuinely the a quartet needs to set upon which sides both sides can getting intoçó negotiations. they ended up with a position that had drifted closer to the palestinian cause instead of encouraging the palestinians, abu mazen, to seize the opportunity, jump into the negotiation. it ended up that they said oh, if i cannot the if then secretary clinton we are going to raise the bar as the arab league raised it even more. so it ends up with a paradox.
the best efforts of the world community to prod them into negotiation ended up widening the gap. sfp they should come around abu mazen and tell them the truth. the world sympathizes with the opposition to take tough decisions. we expect it to be decided around negotiation the. and the party who now rejects direct negotiations is the palestinian side, not israel. >> rose: everything is on the table. is israel prepared to accept what you were prepared to accept at camp david? >> i think that it's too early, so to speak, to answer it. but you can read it between the lines in our position. when we say that we are for this government support, the vision
of two states solution the, we are ready to see a jewish democratic israel side by side with a palestinian viable state. we understand it that there is compelling imperative for pus, for us, in order protect our own identity in the future to delineate the line within the grand land of israel in a way that on one side within this border will there will be a jewish solid majority for generations to come. on the other side a viable palestinianñr state that will reflect their political solution. it could not be so... it cannot be so without dealing with segments, borders, extremely right of return and... >> rose: and jerusalem.
>> and jerusalem: allñr issues should be dealt with in the direct negotiation. if i will say something about our positions, we will reward these tactics of the palestinians never again because it means that the followed by the murderers inñi the fatah, ty think of starting from the point where they left it we should not reward them for delaying it. but basically all issues will be on the table and we fully understand what is at stake and what kind of tough, painful decisions we will have to make in order to reach an agreement. >> rose: it sounds to me like you haven't changed your mind but you don't want to state your position going into the negotiations because you think that's what negotiations are about? >> yeah, of course.ñr and i would like the defense minister to emphasize the element of security. i order, the prime minister, a full pullout of lebanon to the
last square inch there are soldiers. it ended up with now a hezbollah state, getting directions from iran, having 45,000 rockets covering all israel.ñrñr sharon out of all people made this gallant u-turn and ordered a pullout from gaza strip, every settler, every soldier he made... kind of destroyed both villages and synagogues, you name it. and we ended up with thousands of rockets covering... >> rose: okay. but then are you saying it was a mistake for you to withdraw from lebanon? it was a mistake for sharon to withdraw from the gaza? >> no, that was great decision to avoid them from developing and i'm proud of it and i believe sharon if he could say a word of it he would have been proud of it. but we have to make sure that if we have a palestinian state and we withdraw from major or most parts of the weapon, weñr would
not end up with another third place where rockets will cover everything from tel aviv to the airport. that's crazy. we should make sure that security is stable, long term security, we'll make sure that it cannot repeat itself because when you see we had u.n. security council resolution when we left lebanon, it'sñr not abot absence of political will, it's about the capacity to make sure it won't happen. >> rose: and what salaam fayyad is doing on the west bank is helpful to creating that kind of circumstance on the ground? >> i think personally that what fayyad is doing is good for the people. we are trying without making too much credit for it to help the bottom-up activity. he's establishing gradually the
security forces, totally different opportunity for daily life, public order in the streets and even a chain of enforcement. prison system and it will take time. we help it be removing roadblocks and checkpoints and enable manager arrangements that have to do with their booming economy. butñi a viable palestinian state with the security needs it could be all negotiations and i believe the only way to achieve it. >> rose: what's the role of hamas in this? >> i think the fact that they don't control half of their own people is a very bad situation.
we thought, i personally thought that going along the road to a palestinian state is wiz a good idea. probably other ideas could be. if they get into independent and control half of their own land it keeps being an iranian outpost. >> what's the differences that you are trying to work out with washington in terms of what the possibilities are for the future because secretary clinton said there can be no light between israel and the... and the united states. >> i think that our common goals in the shared values and shared vision about... >> rose: i think she was talking about policies. the goals and the values are
clear >> so i think operationally it's important. there will be no light between us. >> rose: exactly. >> it's flornt will be no light between america, the europeans and the u.n. when it comes to what they expect from the palestinians. because if there is a... it will be widened and they will... >> rose: but is there light between israel and the united states over what the future of jerusalem is and should be in a final settlement? >> you know, i think that it doesn't make sense that we discuss in front of this camera the position that should or might be taken by israel around the negotiating table. it's clear to us that there should norj us a palestinian viable state side by side with israel. we already know what has been put on the table by my government, what was on the mind
of olmert government. and we know also the motions of likud and other ingredients of this government. the fact that we agree a two-state solution based on the road map which is a quite detailed document makes it quite clear. the question is whether the palestinians are ready and whether the world can bring us together. >> rose: what is a decision that will be very painful to you that you're prepared to make? >> every decision... some decisions about voters, some decisions about jerusalem, some decisions about the nature of relationships. just recently i told abu mazen in front of president obama i told him, look, abu mazen, the toughest decision you will have to make in order to achieve peace will not be with netanyahu to be facing your own people.
and the same with netanyahu. the toughest, most painful decision you have have to make looking at the eyes of the israeli public. and i told the president we have to invest our creativity and experience in creating the conditions under which those people will be broader to the point of decision saving them the moving through the corridor to this door where they are exposed to public criticism and political obstacles within their own society. if we could think of either a description which since could be clarifyed in a more open matter or some kind of a formative event that change overnight the perception of millions, we should have we should have tried to do this. short of this, we have to find a way to start direct negotiations. that's the point where we defer
from our rivals. we don't want to deal only with these tiny petty issues because if it fails... if proximity talks fail over issues like this or that, permission to do this or that step no one will know. you won't know, we won't know, the palestinian won't know. whether an agreement was achievable and we just missed it or was unachievable to begin with. >> rose: let me talk about the coalition. is your foreign minister mr. lieberman, as flexible as you are about the possibilities of an agreement with the palestinians? he >> he's different and i don't want to pass criticism on his expressions when he's out in the world. the israel deserves our backingr
but behind closed doors when our inner cabinet meets and there's an exchange of views about how to conform to real issues i found it... i found it impressive that members of this cabinet, including lieberman, doesn't repeat what they were told, they use in public appearances. all of us are focused, including lieberman, on what should be done in order to navigate properly the concrete policies of israel. we have differences in ideology. we have differences in wishes and dreams and hopes, you name it. but when itñi comes to the constraints of realities, we are closer than you would expect and what should be done. how to navigate the realities. and i can tell you from my experience and observations, leaders do not necessarily great
decision out of sense of greatness that came out of the blue. in many cases greatness is a bone under the tyranny of circumstances. and we have...ensing how... the alternative, balkanization, kay ys, violence, whatever, how bad... the alternative, to focus on creating this situation or direct negotiations will be... i am confident that any americans, you or any representative of the president sitting in a room with the with the leaders or representatives in a direct negotiation about the issues, we will know if there is an opportunity we will be there. we will be ready to make the decision. i hope the other side will be...
if there is no way, you will know who's responsible. >> rose: is your learning experience from camp david and taba just that? that not no matter what you are prepared to concede, there's no possibility of an agreement coming out of camp david? >> no, don't say this. i said at the time ten years ago that arafat... we could five a pattern in arafat, because he wanted basically not to '67, the occupation, or '47, the very emersion, abu mazen looks more moderate. we have moved away 30 years ago, 40 years ago all the arab community competed with each other, the states with no recognition, no negotiation and no peace. now it turns, the arabs are competing in providing the plans that will be adopted by the world to make a peace agreement in the region. so time has changed.
time is not necessarily on our side, not necessarily on the palestinians side. it's up to call of us to extract most of it. you know, churchill said that the the there is pessimisted in every opportunity. we're optimists. it's difficult but there is an opportunity, we have to seize it. >> rose: okay, about personalities, many people have said to me that yitzhak rabin was different when he became prime minister the second time than he was with h he was the first time. he was more confident, more experienced, wiser, willing to take more risk. is netanyahu different snowed >> basically it's the same person but i think that he also understands with age man which you arety and experience that there are tough choices for israel to make and even if it's
not completely congruent with our inner feelings, emotions, ideology or whatever, theñy responsibility of israeli leaders is to be there not just in order to survive but in order to change reality for the better and that's a huge responsibility and i'm fully confident that netanyahu fully understands it. he never compromise our vital interests, our security interests as any one of us would have done in his place. but he's fully understanding that there is a need to make decisions in a common few years in order to change reality. >> rose: one of those realitys is iran. beyond the nuclear issue but that iran uses the conflict between israelis and palestinians constantly in your region. that's one point.
the other point is general petraeus has said the fact that there's no israeli and palestinian agreement, peaceful co-existence, two states, means that it makes it more difficult for the united states in some of its relations with its arab neighbors >> i totally reject the notion that somehow our strategies and behavior kind of threaten american youngsters in the region. >> rose: you obviously read what general petraeus said. >> i don't know what exactly happened. i don't want to relate it to general petraeus but i reject the notion that somehow these are the policies and attitudes and as i mentioned, we are the party who wants to enter into direct negotiations or to put an end to it. that we somehow indirectly with americans... >> but you don't reject the ideas that the iranians use it everyday and support... they support hamas and hezbollah in part because of it.
>> iranians are trying to work against us and against you. it's a vision of ahmadinejad expressed just a week ago in damascus to see a middle east free of zionists. that's not the point. the point i would make is not that america is hated because it sports israel. jiz hated because it is perceived as an outpost of this way of life, this civilization in areas around it by an ocean of different kind of entities. and i think that we... you know, iranian behavior is a source of grandeur to the whole world, to anyñi conceivable stable world order. and i think that we have a joint interest with the americans, with the moderate arab leaders
to contain and corner these these threats. of course the iranians will try to... >> rose: but it's said that many moderate arab regimes are scared to death of the iranians and especially they get the nuclear weapons and therefore... but the lack of an israeli/palestinian agreement gets in the way of them being more involved in the effort to provide a resis teps and a sanctions against iran. >> i do not buy the major element on the screen or something that kind of compelling causal chain. of course it's somehow related but we have enough incentive to put an end to the palestinians independent of iran and other moderates in the world as a whole should have direct interest of putting an end to the iranian nuclear program
independent of what happened. to think that if we would just have a kind of successful break through with the palestinians iranians will stop thinking about hegemonizing or making us nuclear or pushing these radical axis. it's somewhat naive. of course we can be helpful for us, for the palestinians, for the rest of the world if we are capable of accomplishing an agreement. but saying it you assume implicitly that it's in our lands if netanyahu and myself and other government want it to be over we just put the card on the table and it's over. it's not. there is the need to convince the palestinians there's no daylight between they and you and no daylight between you and the europeans and others and all expecting... they're all
supportive, all sympathizing with these efforts to establish a palestinian independent wrpted of the world community. but it needs decisions. it's not just about sitting idle and waiting for better proposals to come into the table. >> rose: what's necessary, do you think, to bring the palestinians to the table? and is it helpful to have settlements? >> we took unprecedented steps you should this government to... never, no government, including the rabin government never suspended actual building in the new building in the west bank for ten months. it's not simple because it's created barriers. the last neighborhood that was mentioned, first of all, more than half of israel is living in jerusalem or living beyond
the... we see it as part of something which is... but not but no house will start to be bu] two years. but in the next two years we can complete negotiation about a mutually agreed peace agreement between us and the palestinians and start to implement it. so you cannot argue that this or that project in the whole area changes the picture the amount of area that all jewish settlements combined covers on the west bank is probably a few percent of the area. that's not what really blocks it. and what i call for to expose, to unveil the players and to
bring them, bring them to the table. >> rose: what is your analysis as to why the palestinians have not come to the table? >> what happened was that you have this american statement about not a singleñr brick that raised their expectations. that was later on the report that was quite clumsy on abu mazen's side and that was the last embarrassing event that happened. so each party contributed to this. but the point that worries me is the response of the palestinians you know, the way that they find themselves using their weakness, so to speak, as an excuse never to to go into real negotiations. they say, okay, let's see what happens later. when you gather a group behind washington of civil servants and
tell them, try to think of a position, a plan for the next stage, when they talk among themselves, it is... one of them talks to the palestinians and the other one to the egyptian, one to us, one to you. it comes to the surface and immediately they start to weigh. if what weights them down is a better proposal, why to negotiate now? why not just to sit idle and transform the game from a sincere, genuine effort to have a break through into a ritual where the onus of responsibility will be thrown on the israeli shoulders. so that's why i think for us the real test and real interest is to come to the t room where negotiations are made. not to deal with all these...
>> rose: and you are saying that if, in fact, the palestinians come to the table in the room at the table without an american... without george mitchell going back and forth in the room... >> with george mitchell sitting around the table. >> rose: but directing, there's a real possibility... >> there is a possibility, clear and significant one, to have a break through. but it will be proven only in the test and if it fails everyone will know who's responsible and we will have we feel that this is... >> you want to convince the united states that you're not standing in the way of a peace agreement with the palestinians. >> both the united states and our own citizens. our own citizens are going to live through quite tough experiences if we cannot reach peace. they deserve knowing whether this is the responsibility of their own government or the other side.
and they deserve whatever reasonable steps that could be made in order to achieve it. >> rose: all right, back to iran. i've been told this week that prime minister netanyahu and you believe that under certain circumstances sanctions against iran could be effective. do you? >> i think and i hope. >> rose: what kind of sanctions can stop the iranian from building a nuclear capacity? >> we need the kind of sanctions that will be effective. >> rose: what are they? >> it's a combination many steps that have to do with anything from financial transactions in the toward certain limitations on insurance and transportation of other merchandise out and into the world. probably certain sanctions related to the very activities of the bringing into the country
like like very short production. so i believe that it could effective only if it's made in a tight, intimate coordination with the russians and chinese. that doesn't seem... >> rose: but that can bring enough pressure that the iranians will give up their nuclear ambitions? >> i hope and this is the stage right now and we believe that that's what should be done right now. of course we still believe that iran is a major threat to world stability. what can go down the stream with the end of any non-proliferation is the where saudi arabia or probably other places will try to turn nuclear as well. what will end up as a tail wind to al qaeda-like organizations. what can happen around the gull when you already start to see certain players hedging their
bets with the certain possibilities that iran will end up with the upper hand and what it means to the effectiveness and strength of the united states of the free world as a whole if we cannot put an end to such a nuclear program. >> rose: when the president says it's unacceptable for iran to have nuclear weapons or nuclear capabilities, you believe him? >> i fully believe that that's what he intends. he went in further terms, he said in tel aviv in his public speech that the united states is determined to prevent iran from turning into a nuclear military power. i believe. but i also admit that we are living by different clocks, so to speak. >> rose: wait a minute, you think you see a different clock than the americans do? >> we are much more limited than the americans. americans can wait much longer
and still consider what to do. >> because of proximity? >> because of direct capacities and being the only superpower, real superpower. we are leaving... >> rose: what is your time frame? >> i want to go into detail, but we see the possibility that we want certain timeline. it will be much more complicated >> rose: a year away, two years away? >> i don't want to go into details because we still believe that now is the time for the sanctions and much tougher dipt to be put into action. but we said all along the way that we recommend to all players not to allow to drift into self-delusion about what the realities are and to keep in
mind all options, and i think this should be the policy. it's the only relevant one while insisting that the present time is so effective sanctions to be put to work and checked within limited time frame whether it works or not. >> rose: is there any difference in this administration than previous administrations in terms of the nature of the relationship? >> probably but it's too early to pass judgment. clinton in his first term was not... he developed along the way. >> rose: you were prepared to take risks. you were prepared to take risks to your own political career. >> yes, i was. i was and i do not regret it. but let me tell you. i they the real challenge today is to be able to establish basically a mission for netanyahu and to a certain extent for president obama to find a way to nurture intimacy,
trust, and transparency. we cannot promise that there will be no difference. i remember calling many times president clinton telling him, you know, i see something start to... some challenge start to loom over the horizon. the and we have difference about it. differences. but it always was an open, frank discussion. if and, you know, we are sovereign states, we can't dictate to you; you can't dictate us. but there's a need for intimacy, trust, and transparency. and we do not expect president obama president obama to lose vis-a-vis the rest of the issues that are in dispute because...
>> rose: you do not want them to lose his even handedness? >> i think that his even handedness and perceived even handedness creates an opportunity rather than a... as long as it's clear that we cannot just seduce the other partners to come but also encourage them to come and it applies both to the palestinians and in a way to have been the syrians. we have this conflict between israel and it will be put to end and iran, lebanon will be dismantled. and i think it takes a lot of capital, we highly appreciate the that effort the president is doing from many arenas to be highly... >> rose: to speak out to the
islamic community? >> and also to work on iraq and to put more american and european people into afghanistan and to work on the sanctions in iran and to send mitchell and the... >> rose: and afghanistan and pakistan and everything else. >> the president can do a lot to promote a better middle east which directly serves potentially easily. and we should be part of it. we should do it open minded and genuinely without losing sight of our crucial vital security interest which is the americans fully understand and support. >> rose: to what worries you the most? >> what worries me the most is the possibility that we will not use skillfully enough the
leverages we have together with you and with the moderate arab world in order to move the whole thing, both opportunities and challenges properly. and we will end up drifted by uncontrolled events rather than trying to lead in the right direction through certain elements of harmony in spite of differences. >> rose: is there much... is there the same kind of opportunity today-- today-- if the palestinians come to the table as existed at camp david when you were there with president clinton? >> probably... in hindsight probably better because abu mazen is more reasonable and clearly rejects and fayyad is already building from the bottom up a palestinian state and there are obstacles. hamas was not there at the time and it's an obstacle and we have an american president who is
clearly committed to it and that's also a plus. clinton was clearly committed and the fact that obama is clearly commitd is important. >> rose: in the end, have assassinations of hamas figures been a positive thing for the process? >> i don't want to make comment on this. but i think that basically the struggle against terror groups or extremist radicals never hesitates to use their firepower against innocent civilian population and deliberately hiding among a civilian population which are used as a human shield. >> which happened in gaza. >> it happened in gaza, it happened in a way in lebanon. it needs creative thinking about what really helps them. and we should be there and think effectively about that. >> rose: was gaz missnake the
invasion of gaza? >>. >> rose: when, last year? was it overkill? >> i don't think so. i think people just have a high... you know, we have stood for seven years of absorbing thousands of rockets over an innocent civilian population and the time has come for us to act and we acted and we made clear that we'll do whatever we can to minimize collateral damage. i can tell you honestly there's less collateral damage in our fighting than any other fighting of advanced armed forces in the world. >> rose: how do you go about ensuring that? >> i don't know if any other armed forces before it enters into the... >> rose: warn the people? >> a ask the people to leave. leave them millions of droplets,
of placards to tell them what is going to happen, what they expected to do. calling people... you know, when we have to hit a house that we stated we called the owner of the house through the telephone and asked them please leave your place, it's under danger, we have to destroy it. and many left. even afterwards we allow palestinians to come and to convey any complaints they had. >> rose: what happened with the goldstone report, in your judgment? >> i think that no other country would have acted differently. what have you been doing if...
el paso from... i don't know, no way for any sobering to ignore the primal contract of a government which is citizens to protect them against being shelled indiscriminately by a former neighborhood entity. >> rose: during the occupation is there nothing that you look back on and said we went to too far? >> when you use force sometimes mistakes occur. making a point of going and investigating any case that was brought into our attention to make sure whether we have
properly or not. and in the case that we found it, the answer is negative. so the soldiers or commanders sometimes were brought into a criminal investigation, sometimes into a court if it act this is way. and basically we looked into it... i know the directive we issues extremely cautious and balanced of course we want to protect our soldiers but i know of no incidents where people deliberately caused this and many of the cases that goldstone found to be totally unfounded. >> rose: before i leave, the arab neighbors what do you read is their willingness to be a participant here? they always point to the arab
initiative and say we're prepared to make peace with israel one by one in order to create peace in the region. >> i cannot pretend to pen trade their soul. i think we have to be daring enough to make proposal of the same kind in order to be able to negotiate while telling them clear and in advance that we will not violate our vital security interests under whatever they're doing. and i think that that's the main essence of vision vision of this government. the reason why i joined it. i think that our position, party position is that everything, camp david, clinton parameters,
whatever all these together could become the basis for negotiation. we do not exclude anything. but it could be decided around a direct negotiating table and i think that it's a much more genuine... you know, genuine check of the real political wheel and leadership on both sides. then the daily competition for headlines in... some other worldly t.v. stations or media outlets. that's i believe the real responsibility of leaders to go beyond there and be ready to put a fire into it and as i mentioned earlier, i don't think that the real change for abu mazen has to do with his own decision.
how to come to terms with the realities that we all understand about the need to modify the his dreams about right of return or his vision about we cannot put the carriage before the horse. we have to be there to enter. it won't take another 17 years. we are 17 years in this dialogue. we have been there. we have been in any corner of any core issue more than once. we know every mountain, every curve of the road in any remote place. so we are not strangers to this. it needs the leadership, the will, the inner kasty to take decisions being able to envision your vital interests on one hand and the nature of the